General Election 2015

I wonder how they decide what to build where?

it has to be with direction from the local authorities or what ever.

In plymouth, large parts of Devonport have been knocked down and rebuilt. Also, due to huge defence cutbacks over the years, large parts of (what was) South Yard are now houses/flats. As well as other old MoD sites (like mount wise etc). Throw in parts around the city. The housing boom around here is huge

F**king hell gents, Pap, despite is rambling at times, has never said anything about kicking his mum out just simply laid out a scenario where he could buy his mums house and take ownership after 3 years, that's all.

 

Stop being so f**king pathetic.

Whilst I might moderate the language used Wes, VFTT is right.

pap's entire position on the subject is that he would never do it. I believe he was illustrating that, far from being simply an academic principle, he actually does have the option to buy his mother's house. Despite having the option, he won't do it.

So asking him where his mother would live after he kicked her out is simply not relevant.

Interesting debate between Gove and Boulton on Sky News last night.

I think Gove did a pretty good job of attempting to defend the indefensible. He's a proper politician - and I mean that in the most insulting way possible.

Boulton does a good job of grilling him on the issues, and Gove fights back and obfuscates.

Politician wins. Politics loses.

Whilst I might moderate the language used Wes, VFTT is right.

 

pap's entire position on the subject is that he would never do it. I believe he was illustrating that, far from being simply an academic principle, he actually does have the option to buy his mother's house. Despite having the option, he won't do it.

 

So asking him where his mother would live after he kicked her out is simply not relevant.

I suspect Wes knew all this already.

I see Labour are going to allow Grandparents to share unpaid parental leave - that will easy to administer - six people sharing a finite amount of leave over an 18 year period across god knows how many employers.

It is not actually a daft concept - just a logistical nightmare

One thing about the RTB v2 proposal that doesn't seem to be getting too much attention is the effect of forcing councils to sell off their most valuable housing stock.

Presumably this valuable housing stock will either be a) in a expensive area, or b) a large property.

If that assumption is correct, then a) may well result in 'unplanned' social engineering - forcing lower income families out of certain areas, and b) may well force larger families to move away from the area completely if new large houses are not built to replace those sold off.

I also recognise that the manifesto says that qualifying housing will be sold when it becomes vacant. But, how does that allow any form of timescale to be placed on the raising of these funds?Taking it to the extreme to prove the principle, what if no valuable housing stock 'becomes available' at any time over the course of the next parliament?

Perhaps steps might be taken to ensure that the more valuable properties become vacant.

One thing about the RTB v2 proposal that doesn't seem to be getting too much attention is the effect of forcing councils to sell off their most valuable housing stock.

 

Presumably this valuable housing stock will either be a) in a expensive area, or b) a large property.

 

If that assumption is correct, then a) may well result in 'unplanned' social engineering - forcing lower income families out of certain areas, and b) may well force larger families to move away from the area completely if new large houses are not built to replace those sold off.

 

I also recognise that the manifesto says that qualifying housing will be sold when it becomes vacant. But, how does that allow any form of timescale to be placed on the raising of these funds?Taking it to the extreme to prove the principle, what if no valuable housing stock 'becomes available' at any time over the course of the next parliament?

 

Perhaps steps might be taken to ensure that the more valuable properties become vacant.

The whole thing is a joke.

The big new idea is that the government will force charities to sell their assets at a knockdown price. At the moment, we don't even know if it's legal, but practically, you'd think the government would need to compensate for the huge loss in assets. If they do, then the taxpayer is essentially going to bear the cost of paying the HAs off, all for the benefit of a small section of HA tenants.

If they don't, then that's social housing over.

I like the way you've quoted "unplanned", btw. Just like the "unplanned" consequences of the HB bill.

Have we had this on here yet? Sorry if so,this thread moves fast so may have missed it.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hundreds-of-firefighters-sign-open-letter-urging-dont-vote-tory-in-wake-of-brigade-cuts-10173819.html

I see Labour are going to allow Grandparents to share unpaid parental leave - that will easy to administer - six people sharing a finite amount of leave over an 18 year period across god knows how many employers.

 

It is not actually a daft concept - just a logistical nightmare

I work with some young families who wouldn't be able to either A) have kids B) return to work after kids if it wasn't for the grandparents as the price of childcare is so astronomical.

Both sets of grandparents live miles from us but they would have been a godsend if they'd been closer.

I like the policy but how it would be implemented? I just don't know.

I work with some young families who wouldn't be able to either A) have kids B) return to work after kids if it wasn't for the grandparents as the price of childcare is so astronomical.

 

Both sets of grandparents live miles from us but they would have been a godsend if they'd been closer.

 

I like the policy but how it would be implemented? I just don't know.

I look after 4 of my grandchildren - 2 who are 2 and a half and 2 for school runs / school holidays. I spend 4 days a week looking after them one way or another (today's my 'day off' )

There's no way I could have done this before retirement because I just couldn't have afforded to. Even had there been the option to take 'unpaid grandparental leave'.

Have we had this on here yet? Sorry if so,this thread moves fast so may have missed it.

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hundreds-of-firefighters-sign-open-letter-urging-dont-vote-tory-in-wake-of-brigade-cuts-10173819.html

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/200092/FINAL_Facing_the_Future__3_md.pdf

Back to RTB - some facts and figures

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/right-to-buy-housing-shame-third-ex-council-1743338#ICID=sharebar_facebook

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/200092/FINAL_Facing_the_Future__3_md.pdf

Interesting info regarding the fall in the number of incidents.

I used to be sympathetic to fire fighters, but if there is a 40% reduction in fires over the last decade, then surely it is logical that funding should be reduced and perhaps spent elsewhere? Had the number of incidents stayed the same, then maybe the FB would have a valid point about the tories being nasty wasty

I remember being a fire fighter in Op Fresco.

put their pay rise request to shame during that time.

I suspect Wes knew all this already.

Of course I suspected that you would not have turfed your mother out on the street, and you show your caring side by indicating that she could continue to live in her former residence and that in true Thatcher style, you would then hand it down to your children and wealth would thus cascade down through the generations, your children having a good start to their adult lives with a foot on the housing ladder. Albeit that the likelihood would be that when you pop your clogs, your estate comprising this property and your own home would together probably attract Inheritance Tax.

But going back to that last line of yours, now we have established that it only applies to unscrupulous landlords who will hoover up these properties on the cheap to then impose hefty rents on their tenants, let's look a bit more closely at it. I'm presuming that unless they are less caring than you, that they are not buying these properties off their relatives and then turfing them out. That being the case, they are finding tenants of Council/Housing Association properties and pursuading them to either allow that unscrupulous person to buy the property on their behalf with an agreement that it will be transferred into their name after three years, (unlikely) or else the tenant would have bought it themselves and then been pursuaded to sell it to this individual at a profit.

Either way, the question is begged where will that tenant then live? They could buy another property with the proceeds, but as they had bought their own property on the cheap, they are unlikely to get anything comparable at the same price. Then having lived at that property for some years in order to be able to buy it, they would also have to face moving elsewhere. If renting, then their rent would likely be considerably higher than they were paying previously, and probably even more than their mortgage to buy would have been. In short, it doesn't stack up.

I suspect that in the one third of cases where these former Council properties have ended up in the hands of private landlords, the majority have been because the owners have sold them for no more sinister reason than that they have moved elsewhere, moved up the property ladder, or died/gone into a nursing home, etc. At that point, these landlords might purchase those properties, not many at all via the route that you have outlined.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/200092/FINAL_Facing_the_Future__3_md.pdf

tl;dr?

Cannae be arsed going through 80 pages.

I suspect that in the one third of cases where these former Council properties have ended up in the hands of private landlords, the majority have been because the owners have sold them for no more sinister reason than that they have moved elsewhere, moved up the property ladder, or died/gone into a nursing home, etc. At that point, these landlords might purchase those properties, not many at all via the route that you have outlined.

If you consider that 20% of all properties are owned by private landlords, why should it be different with ex council house properties?

And as your point illustrates, it is unlikely that the unscrupilous nasty evil landlords would have hoovered up the properties. The nasty evil landlords would have more likely paid market rate to buy properties off the former tenants (who would have done quite nicely in the process). It's funny how the nasty evil landlords are castigated, whilst the former tenants cashing in and making huge profits are let off the hook.

tl;dr?

 

Cannae be arsed going through 80 pages.

Nor will 90% of the electorate I would venture. #headlineswinvotes

Interesting info regarding the fall in the number of incidents.

 

I used to be sympathetic to fire fighters, but if there is a 40% reduction in fires over the last decade, then surely it is logical that funding should be reduced and perhaps spent elsewhere? Had the number of incidents stayed the same, then maybe the FB would have a valid point about the tories being nasty wasty

Surely it's all about response times, not workload with the FB?

Of course I suspected that you would not have turfed your mother out on the street, and you show your caring side by indicating that she could continue to live in her former residence and that in true Thatcher style, you would then hand it down to your children and wealth would thus cascade down through the generations, your children having a good start to their adult lives with a foot on the housing ladder. Albeit that the likelihood would be that when you pop your clogs, your estate comprising this property and your own home would together probably attract Inheritance Tax.

 

What part of "But Pap wouldn't do that, though" don't you understand?

Keep flogging it though. Keep flogging it.

Surely it's all about response times, not workload with the FB?

Don't be daft, it's about pay. Always is.

Anyway, if there is 40% less work to do, with the same number of firefighters, surely that money could be better spent elsewhere?? When 42% of call outs are false alarms, by reducing these, response times and budgets could be cut. But let's not even think of applying some common sense to the situation, let's just bash those nasty wasty evil tories.

Interesting info regarding the fall in the number of incidents.

 

I used to be sympathetic to fire fighters, but if there is a 40% reduction in fires over the last decade, then surely it is logical that funding should be reduced and perhaps spent elsewhere? Had the number of incidents stayed the same, then maybe the FB would have a valid point about the tories being nasty wasty

40% reduction in fires? - that genuinely surprises me. You would have thought that it would be proportional to population sizes.

Of course I suspected that you would not have turfed your mother out on the street, and you show your caring side by indicating that she could continue to live in her former residence and that in true Thatcher style, you would then hand it down to your children and wealth would thus cascade down through the generations, your children having a good start to their adult lives with a foot on the housing ladder. Albeit that the likelihood would be that when you pop your clogs, your estate comprising this property and your own home would together probably attract Inheritance Tax.

 

But going back to that last line of yours, now we have established that it only applies to unscrupulous landlords who will hoover up these properties on the cheap to then impose hefty rents on their tenants, let's look a bit more closely at it. I'm presuming that unless they are less caring than you, that they are not buying these properties off their relatives and then turfing them out. That being the case, they are finding tenants of Council/Housing Association properties and pursuading them to either allow that unscrupulous person to buy the property on their behalf with an agreement that it will be transferred into their name after three years, (unlikely) or else the tenant would have bought it themselves and then been pursuaded to sell it to this individual at a profit.

 

Either way, the question is begged where will that tenant then live? They could buy another property with the proceeds, but as they had bought their own property on the cheap, they are unlikely to get anything comparable at the same price. Then having lived at that property for some years in order to be able to buy it, they would also have to face moving elsewhere. If renting, then their rent would likely be considerably higher than they were paying previously, and probably even more than their mortgage to buy would have been. In short, it doesn't stack up.

 

I suspect that in the one third of cases where these former Council properties have ended up in the hands of private landlords, the majority have been because the owners have sold them for no more sinister reason than that they have moved elsewhere, moved up the property ladder, or died/gone into a nursing home, etc. At that point, these landlords might purchase those properties, not many at all via the route that you have outlined.

Really? You spent enough time trying to establish it

I think it's always better to research than suspect, btw. If you'd done your research, you'd have discovered that there were actually firms aggressively targeting people in council accommodation offering to buy the house on the tenant's behalf. The tenant would normally clear out after the three year period, and the landlord would end up getting the property.

As I said at the start, I don't really have an issue with right to buy as it applies to council houses as long as the stock is being replaced. My personal view is that it really should be for people who want to own their own home because it's their home, not because it offers a cheap way to speculate on the housing market.

Applying it to housing associations is madness. It's one thing to sell off things the public owns, quite another to sell off something that other people own.

it has to be with direction from the local authorities or what ever.

In plymouth, large parts of Devonport have been knocked down and rebuilt. Also, due to huge defence cutbacks over the years, large parts of (what was) South Yard are now houses/flats. As well as other old MoD sites (like mount wise etc). Throw in parts around the city. The housing boom around here is huge

Thank God they did that with Devonport btw...

40% reduction in fires? - that genuinely surprises me. You would have thought that it would be proportional to population sizes.

Not with improvements in fire awareness, smoke alarms, material technologies etc.

When was the last time you saw a fire engine going anywhere in a hurry?

40% reduction in fires? - that genuinely surprises me. You would have thought that it would be proportional to population sizes.

The number of people killed by horse and carriage has gone down too over the last 100 years or so....

40% reduction in fires? - that genuinely surprises me. You would have thought that it would be proportional to population sizes.

Not necessarily, house and appliance stock will have been updated over the years, becoming safer and creating less fires.

I'm just guessing here but I suspect the number of smokers has gone down dramatically as well. And chip pans.

40% reduction in fires? - that genuinely surprises me. You would have thought that it would be proportional to population sizes.

I don't think that is as relevant as fire prevention, which is far better (e.g. more use of smoke alarms, better fire resistant materials, less people smoking, better electrical safety for instance)

Here are the changes over the last decade...

Overall attendance at incidents is down 40 per cent

Attendance at fires is down 48 per cent;

Building fires, down 39 per cent;

Minor outdoor fires, down 44 per cent;

Road traffic collisions, down 24 per cent;

I am sorry, but how can anyone expect to have the same numbers of firefighters and pay them more money, based on the above stats??

That doesn't stop the FB unions (flying in the face of common sense), to continue bashing the nasty wasty tories...

If you'd done your research, you'd have discovered that there were actually firms aggressively targeting people in council accommodation offering to buy the house on the tenant's behalf. The tenant would normally clear out after the three year period, and the landlord would end up getting the property.

And how successful were these firms? How many tenants actually entered into agreements like this?

If you'd done your research, you'd have discovered that there were actually firms aggressively targeting people in council accommodation offering to buy the house on the tenant's behalf. The tenant would normally clear out after the three year period, and the landlord would end up getting the property.

And how successful were these firms? How many tenants actually entered into agreements like this?

And how successful were these firms? How many tenants actually entered into agreements like this?

And how successful were these firms? How many tenants actually entered into agreements like this?

Not sure, but then you knew that anyway. Still being ruthlessly exploited as late as last year.

http://z2k.org/2014/09/right-to-buy-the-london-investment-property-group/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2905827/The-tenants-benefits-buying-council-house-one-five-applicants-receive-handouts.html

Nicholas Carlino, a director of London Investment Property Group, told an undercover Sunday Times reporter that he was making so much money snapping up homes that had been undervalued by the council and selling them on that he would ‘never have to work again’. The scheme was entirely legal.

I think it's always better to research than suspect, btw. If you'd done your research, you'd have discovered that there were actually firms aggressively targeting people in council accommodation offering to buy the house on the tenant's behalf. The tenant would normally clear out after the three year period, and the landlord would end up getting the property.

 

As I said at the start, I don't really have an issue with right to buy as it applies to council houses as long as the stock is being replaced. My personal view is that it really should be for people who want to own their own home because it's their home, not because it offers a cheap way to speculate on the housing market.

 

Applying it to housing associations is madness. It's one thing to sell off things the public owns, quite another to sell off something that other people own.

. So having done the research, you'll be able to point me in the direction of a link to the site that can provide the figures to show how many of these properties are owned by private landlords who have aggresively targeted new owners of former council properties and what percentage of them have come into the hands of landlords because of the reasons I outlined, i.e. sales because of movement of employment, upscaling property, going into care or death, etc.

Having seen your response to Torres, I see that you don't know

A cursory search revealed a much more alarming situation in my opinion, whereby an individual would rent a property and then sub-let it on, converting lounges and dining rooms into extra bedrooms so that he made a substantial profit beyond the original rent paid. I would have thought that this would have been disallowed by the original rental agreement, but nevertheless it seems to be something quite widespread.

. So having done the research, you'll be able to point me in the direction of a link to the site that can provide the figures to show how many of these properties are owned by private landlords who have aggresively targeted new owners of former council properties and what percentage of them have come into the hands of landlords because of the reasons I outlined, i.e. sales because of movement of employment, upscaling property, going into care or death, etc.

 

Having seen your response to Torres, I see that you don't know

 

A cursory search revealed a much more alarming situation in my opinion, whereby an individual would rent a property and then sub-let it on, converting lounges and dining rooms into extra bedrooms so that he made a substantial profit beyond the original rent paid. I would have thought that this would have been disallowed by the original rental agreement, but nevertheless it seems to be something quite widespread.

You've got a recent example of a firm hoovering up the last of the stuff in London. Amazingly, 20% of homes bought under the scheme there were paid for by claimants on housing benefit. Maybe that's how Jamie's parents got their house!

You are quite right. I haven't got the time nor inclination to provide complete figures, but then, I was never relying on a specific claim about figures. You introduced that requirement, presumably to narrow the argument in your favour. "Give me all the facts now or you're wrong!" is a shíte debating tactic.

Especially when you can type "right to buy scam" or "right to buy fraud" into Google.

What I don't get, and I hope someone can enlighten me, is why the major house builders seem to only build 3, 4 & 5 bed houses on the new estates. Quite often around here they are only 4/5 bed developments, priced insanely high, which then seemed to be heavily discounted before they shift.

 

The place is crying out for fair priced starter homes but they just don't seem to be being built.

I think it works better that way. No-one actually wants a small starter home, its just what people can afford. It you build a lot of big detached houses you'll get four or maybe five people in a chain trading up into the house vacated by the person moving up - five families will benefit from every house built. If you build enough of them you reduce prices all the way down the chain and improve the housing stock at the same time. If you keep building small starter homes all you are doing is addressing the housing crisis by providing the cheapest, crappiest solution. The aim should be to build so many good quality houses that small flats become ridiculously cheap and affordable by everyone as they were during the 1990s.

I think it works better that way. No-one actually wants a small starter home, its just what people can afford. It you build a lot of big detached houses you'll get four or maybe five people in a chain trading up into the house vacated by the person moving up. If you build enough of them you reduce prices all the way down the chain and improve the housing stock at the same time. If you keep building small crap starter homes all you are doing is addressing the housing crisis by providing the cheapest, crappiest solution. Build lots of quality houses and you will dea; with thr supply and price problem throughout the whole market.

I mentioned a proposal earlier and got snapped down for it but I think it's worth consideration. I read in the Times an argument that rather than building starter homes we should be building more retirement properties so that older people could move out of their oversized houses and free these up for the younger population. It was suggested that these occupants may need some incentive to move out, maybe by removing or reducing stamp duty for their new purchase. Any duties theoretically lost would be made up by the purchase of the home they had vacated and by an increased number of transactions.

I think it works better that way. No-one actually wants a small starter home, its just what people can afford. It you build a lot of big detached houses you'll get four or maybe five people in a chain trading up into the house vacated by the person moving up - five families will benefit from every house built. If you build enough of them you reduce prices all the way down the chain and improve the housing stock at the same time. If you keep building small starter homes all you are doing is addressing the housing crisis by providing the cheapest, crappiest solution. The aim should be to build so many good quality houses that small flats become ridiculously cheap and affordable by everyone as they were during the 1990s.

I think these are more profitable for the builders. Of course the authorities press for more starter homes.

You've got a recent example of a firm hoovering up the last of the stuff in London. Amazingly, 20% of homes bought under the scheme there were paid for by claimants on housing benefit. Maybe that's how Jamie's parents got their house!

 

You are quite right. I haven't got the time nor inclination to provide complete figures, but then, I was never relying on a specific claim about figures. You introduced that requirement, presumably to narrow the argument in your favour. "Give me all the facts now or you're wrong!" is a shíte debating tactic.

 

Especially when you can type "right to buy scam" or "right to buy fraud" into Google.

Pardon me, but it was you who claimed that you had done the research, whereas I was merely making assumptions that the percentage of properties bought by unscrupulous landlords deliberately targeting RTB owners was probably small compared to the other normal reasons why those properties were then resold and how landlords came to own 30% of former council properties.

What is a sh*te debating tactic is claiming that you have done the research and then back-tracking when quizzed on it.

As you say though, it is scandalous that Westminster Council allowed people on Housing Benefits to purchase their properties without making sufficient enquiries as to how they came upon the money to buy them. Apparently they claimed it was from an overseas gift which was difficult to check, but then it should have been stipulated that if the property was to be sold three years later, all of the discount should have been repaid. It is claimed now that any requests to buy from occupants on Housing Benefits will be rigorously checked, but the horse has already bolted on many of those properties.

I think these are more profitable for the builders. Of course the authorities press for more starter homes.

Probably. Local authorities are required to stipulate that a certain percentage (40%?) of any development is social housing. The solution needs to be nationally led and more strategic than that.

I read in the Times an argument that rather than building starter homes we should be building more retirement properties so that older people could move out of their oversized houses and free these up for the younger population. It was suggested that these occupants may need some incentive to move out, maybe by removing or reducing stamp duty for their new purchase. Any duties theoretically lost would be made up by the purchase of the home they had vacated and by an increased number of transactions.

Something like that would help too. The frustrating thing is that apparently 85% of the population agree we have a housing crisis but none of the parties are making it their number 1 policy priority.

Something like that would help too. The frustrating thing is that apparently 85% of the population agree we have a housing crisis but none of the parties are making it their number 1 policy priority.

You can't force the oldies out of their properties though...

Agree 100% with the second point.

Pardon me, but it was you who claimed that you had done the research, whereas I was merely making assumptions that the percentage of properties bought by unscrupulous landlords deliberately targeting RTB owners was probably small compared to the other normal reasons why those properties were then resold and how landlords came to own 30% of former council properties.

 

What is a sh*te debating tactic is claiming that you have done the research and then back-tracking when quizzed on it.

Well, it's evidently more research than you've ever done on the subject, Wes. How many times have you been educated about some facet of the Right to Buy scheme in this thread alone? Still, I'm sure your ragtag collection of unsubstantiated assumptions are easier to find on the Internet than my linked content proving the case.

Keep on making the assumptions though, kid. It's worked out excellently for you so far.

As you say though, it is scandalous that Westminster Council allowed people on Housing Benefits to purchase their properties without making sufficient enquiries as to how they came upon the money to buy them. Apparently they claimed it was from an overseas gift which was difficult to check, but then it should have been stipulated that if the property was to be sold three years later, all of the discount should have been repaid. It is claimed now that any requests to buy from occupants on Housing Benefits will be rigorously checked, but the horse has already bolted on many of those properties.

It's not just Westminster, and it wasn't just last year. I can remember people being targeted back in the day with sale and rent schemes. This document from the current government acknowledges that abuse of the system has taken place in the past, but it doesn't provide any figures, so it must be wrong

Exploitation of the Right to Buy scheme

The Government recognises that, in the past, there has been potential for exploitation of the Right to Buy scheme. In particular, the substantially discounted price of Right to Buy homes led to some companies offering incentives to tenants to buy their homes and leave via a sale and lease back arrangement.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5936/2102605.pdf

The issue is non-trivial enough so that government felt it had to cover it during the 2012 revamp of the scheme. I reckon you might be better off suggesting I'm going to turf me ma out on the street again.

Well, it's evidently more research than you've ever done on the subject, Wes. How many times have you been educated about some facet of the Right to Buy scheme in this thread alone? Still, I'm sure your ragtag collection of unsubstantiated assumptions are easier to find on the Internet than my linked content proving the case.

 

Keep on making the assumptions though, kid. It's worked out excellently for you so far.

 

 

 

It's not just Westminster, and it wasn't just last year. I can remember people being targeted back in the day with sale and rent schemes. This document from the current government acknowledges that abuse of the system has taken place in the past, but it doesn't provide any figures, so it must be wrong

 

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5936/2102605.pdf

 

The issue is non-trivial enough so that government felt it had to cover it during the 2012 revamp of the scheme. I reckon you might be better off suggesting I'm going to turf me ma out on the street again.

How can you quantify how big a problem it is without said figures, and then expect what you have said to be read as gospel when no figures are provided?

How can you quantify how big a problem it is without said figures, and then expect what you have said to be read as gospel when no figures are provided?

The issue is non-trivial enough so that government felt it had to cover it during the 2012 revamp of the scheme.

Reckon the govt were just pulling numbers out of their arses to determine this?

Even the CBI is against RTB

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/14/tory-housing-association-right-to-buy-policy-attacked-big-business

Even the CBI is against RTB

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/14/tory-housing-association-right-to-buy-policy-attacked-big-business

Like you, I have always respected the thinking of the CBI....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11533909/Quick-fix-Labour-plans-a-cause-for-concern-experts-warn.html

http://www.reward-guide.co.uk/hubs/payandbonuses/business-groups-slam-labour-s-plans-for-zero-hours-contracts

http://www.wsandb.co.uk/wsb/news/2371387/labours-gbp8-minimum-wage-pledge-attacked-by-cbi

The issue is non-trivial enough so that government felt it had to cover it during the 2012 revamp of the scheme.

 

Reckon the govt were just pulling numbers out of their arses to determine this?

 

I had already read that thanks, but some figures would help. How many people in the UK evade tax? Not many as a percentage, but still acknowledged by the government and others as an issue.

I had already read that thanks, but some figures would help. How many people in the UK evade tax? Not many as a percentage, but still acknowledged by the government and others as an issue.

How would they help?

What are you going to do with them?

Y'know, if I suspected you had any fúcking interest in said figures, I'd call the number or send something to the email address on the doc (you could too!).

However, we can both see that this is a man with no facts of his own trying to dump on what someone else has provided.

You can't force the oldies out of their properties though...

 

Agree 100% with the second point.

Nor should you (I have to declare and interest here)

Hence some sort of incentive. I think everybody agrees, something needs to be done. There is an imbalance in the type of supply and the type of demand.